Skip to main content
Glama

maptiler

by io.usefulapi

Forward geocode (search place by name)

maptiler_geocode
Read-only

Search for a place, address, or POI by name and get matching locations as GeoJSON features. e.g. 'Zurich' or '1600 Pennsylvania Ave'. API: GET /geocoding/{query}.json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bboxNoBounding box "west,south,east,north" to restrict results.
limitNoMax results (1-10). Default 5.
queryYesPlace/address/POI to search for (goes in the URL path).
typesNoComma-separated place types to include (e.g. address,poi,city).
countryNoComma-separated ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes to restrict to.
languageNoComma-separated ISO 639-1 language codes for results.
proximityNoBias toward a point: "lon,lat" or the literal "ip".
worldviewNoDisputed-border worldview: default | auto | ch | us.
fuzzyMatchNoAllow approximate matching of the query terms.
autocompleteNoTreat the last term as a prefix for as-you-type search.
excludeTypesNoIf true, `types` becomes an exclude list instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with search. Description adds behavioral context: returns GeoJSON features, uses GET endpoint, provides example query. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: purpose + output, then example and API endpoint. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and simple tool, description covers core function and output format. Could mention result structure or error handling, but sufficient for geocoding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already provided. Description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain how parameters interact).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states verb "search" and resource "place/address/POI". Specifies output as GeoJSON features. Differentiates from sibling tools like reverse geocode by focusing on name-based search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies use for forward geocoding by name but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings. No guidance on batch vs single search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All maptiler toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: forward geocoding (batch and single), reverse geocoding, IP geolocation, data features retrieval, elevation lookup, coordinate system search, and coordinate transformation. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores, prefixed by 'maptiler_'. While most are consistent (e.g., 'get_elevation', 'search_coordinate_systems'), 'reverse_geocode' and 'geolocate_ip' are slight variations but still clear. The naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is an appropriate number for a geolocation and mapping utility server. Each tool serves a distinct operation without being excessive or insufficient. The scope is well-defined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core geolocation operations: forward/reverse geocoding, batch processing, IP geolocation, elevation, coordinate systems, and data features. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no map tile retrieval or routing), but the set is complete for the advertised functionality.

Resources